Rodriquez-Coss v. Sessions

JACABED RODRIQUEZ-COSS Plaintiff v. JEFF B. SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Defendant

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:16-cv-00633-VLB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

June 29, 2018

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. 35]

Plaintiff Jacabed Rodriquez-Coss ("Plaintiff" or "Rodriquez-Coss") brings this action raising claims of retaliation and sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and discrimination due to perceived or actual disability under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 791, et seq., arising from her employment at the Department of Justice. Defendant moves for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. [Dkt. 35]. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion.

Background

The following facts are taken from the Local Rule 56 statements of material facts and evidence cited by the parties, and they are read in the light most favorable to the non-movant. In 2008, Rodriquez-Coss joined the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, as an attorney in the Capital Case Unit ("CCU") in Washington D.C. [Dkt. 35-2 (D. Conn Civ. L. R. 56(a)(1) Stmt.) ¶ 1; Dkt. 47 (D. Conn. Civ. L. R. 56(a)(2) Stmt.) ¶ 1].¹ Initially, when Rodriquez-Coss first joined the CCU, members of the CCU were not required to travel to the regional United States Attorney Offices ("USAO"). [Dkt. 46-2, Ex. B (Rodriquez-Coss Dep.) at 40:8-11]. One of the primary reasons that Rodriquez-Coss accepted the position at the CCU was the promise from the previous chief of the CCU that there was no travel requirement. Id. at 23:6-9.

In 2010, Kevin Carwile became Chief of both the CCU and the Capital Case Section ("CCS"). [Dkt. 46-5, Ex. E (Carwile Dep.) at 166:1-167:14]. Carwile expanded the unit's mission to include the active litigation of cases with the local USAOs. Id. This expansion meant attorneys in the unit were required to travel to the venues where their assigned cases were pending.

In the months following this meeting, Rodriquez-Coss's husband accepted a job in Connecticut, leading Rodriquez-Coss to resign from her position at the CCS. [Dkt. 46-2 at 53:3-9]. A week before her employment ended with the CCS, Gwynn "Charlie" Kinsey, the Deputy Chief of the CCS, offered Rodriquez-Coss the opportunity to continue working with the CCS remotely on a capital case pending in Connecticut, United States v. Aquart, which was then pending in Connecticut. Id. at 53:10-16. Rodriquez-Coss accepted and signed her first Flexiplace Agreement on November 8, 2010, which enabled her to work remotelyfor the CCU from the USAO in Bridgeport, Connecticut. [Dkt. 35-4, Ex. D (Flexiplace Agreements) at 71 of PDF]. The term of this agreement lasted until February 28, 2011. Id. As the agreement detailed, "[d]uring the period of this arrangement, the employee will be assigned to assist in the pretrial preparation of U.S. v. Azibo Aquart, et al. . . . as well as conduct case review and policy work as assigned by CCU. At the end of the agreement period, the Chief of the Capital Case Unit will evaluate if extension is warranted, and a new agreement will be required if extension is granted." Id. Rodriquez-Coss initially believed that this assignment was only a temporary measure until she was able to find other employment in Connecticut. [Dkt. 46-2 at 29:21-25].

After the Aquart trial concluded in July 2011, Carwile contacted Rodriquez-Coss to inform her that she could continue working for the CCS from Connecticut based on continually updated Flexiplace Agreements. Id. at 29:16-30:2; [Dkt. 35-2 ¶ 5; Dkt. 47 ¶ 5]. Thereafter, until February 2014, Rodriquez-Coss worked for the CCS in Connecticut under Flexiplace Agreements of varying duration on cases pending in New England primarily. [Dkt. 35-2 ¶ 5; Dkt. 47 ¶ 5].

After the conclusion of the Aquart trial, during the summer of 2011, Rodriquez-Coss was assigned to litigate a § 2255 habeas case, United States v. Fell, in Vermont. [Dkt. 35-2 ¶ 8; Dkt. 47 ¶ 8; Dkt. 35-5, Ex. Q (Email 1/6/14)].

Months later, near the end of 2011 or at the beginning of 2012, Rodriquez-Coss was assigned an additional case, United States v. Stone, pending before the Eastern District of California in Fresno. [Dkt. 46-2 at 58:21-59:3]. When Rodriquez-Coss received this assignment, she immediately called Carwile toinform him that it would be very difficult for her to litigate the case, since it would require her to be away from her family for three to four months at a time. Id. at 82:9-17. Rodriquez-Coss did not resign from her position and proceeded to litigate the case; however, she continually requested a reassignment, and even proposed alternative solutions, so that she could assist with the case without acting as the lead prosecutor. Id. at 83:14-23. Despite her misgivings, Rodriquez-Coss entered her appearance in the case on March 26, 2012. [Dkt. 35-5, Ex. F (Not. Appearance)].

In addition to Fell and Stone, Rodriquez-Coss was also assigned a case pending in Rhode Island, United States v. Pleau, in 2012. [Dkt. 35-5, Ex. Q]. All three of these cases—Fell, Stone, and Pleau—remained active until the summer of 2013, when the defendant in Pleau pled guilty. [Dkt. 46-2 at 162:24-164:1].

Several AUSAs submitted affidavits opining that the number of cases assigned to Rodriquez-Coss was abnormal. [Dkt. 46-6, Ex. F (Mosley Decl.) ¶ 11; Dkt. 46-7, (Hegyi Decl.) ¶ 16]. According to Kinsey, at the time his deposition was taken the CCS currently had an estimated total of eight to 12 capital cases and 15 to 25 § 2255 cases, with a total of 13 attorneys. [Dkt. 46-5 at 118:21-120:2]. Based on Kinsey's estimate of a range of 23-38 cases and 13 AUSAs, there could not be an equal number of cases assigned to each AUSA in the unit. There is no evidence in the record showing the number of active criminal cases, criminal trials or habeas cases pending in the unit during the time Rodriguez-Coss was employed. Nor is there any evidence of the number of AUSAs in the unit, their background and experience, their reporting relationships or their caseloads.

During the summer of 2012, Rodriquez-Coss complained of discriminatory accommodations to her supervisors. [Dkt. 46-1, Ex. A (Rodriquez-Coss EEOC Stat.) at 17:12-13]. Rodriquez-Coss complained that a white male coworker, Stanley Rothstein, was not required to travel or litigate cases outside of Washington, D.C. Id. at 17:13-19. Rothstein confirmed that, between 2008 and 2013, he was only assigned one case. [Dkt. 46-11, Ex. K (Rothstein Decl.) ¶ 4]. During that case, Rothstein was not an active litigator and only made two short trips to the regional USAO. Id.

In late 2012, Rodriquez-Coss's family was impacted by the tragic mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, located five minutes away from where Rodriquez-Coss lived. [Dkt. 46-2 at 117:10-12]. Rodriquez-Coss testified that, given the proximity of this shooting, there was an emotional impact on Rodriquez-Coss's family, particularly her school-age children. Id. at 117:12-13, 119:24-120:8. Because of this turmoil, Rodriquez-Coss expressed concerned to Carwile and Kinsey about leaving her family for months to conduct a lengthy trial. Id. at 117:17-20. As Rodriquez-Coss informed Kinsey, the combined stress of three active cases alongside her family's struggles made it increasingly difficult to adequately litigate each case. Id. at 117:24-118:2.

On February 26, 2013, Carwile wrote in an email:

As you know, we have Jackie Rodriquez-Coss on our payroll but working out of the USAO in Connecticut. Not a perfect arrangement but I prefer, at this point, to continue the arrangement until mid-summer and see where we stand at that point as a result of hiring additional attorneys, etc. Her prior Flexiplace Agreement has expired. . . . I would like to [renew] this asap because she recently received her mid-year review and started squawking when she was told she needed to be more proactive in traveling to cover herlitigation matters. Before I raise this matter with her again, I want to get an updated agreement in place. I shortened the duration of the agreement in the event this turns into a larger problem.

[Dkt. 35-5, Ex. H (Email 2/26/13)]. Rodriquez-Coss was subsequently issued a four-month Flexiplace Agreement on February 27, 2013 with an expiration date of June 29, 2013. [Dkt. 35-4 at 75 of PDF]. Rodriquez-Coss was later offered a six-month Flexiplace Agreement that was signed on June 30, 2013, and ended December 31, 2013. Id.

As Rodriquez-Coss continued to litigate Stone in 2013, she encountered numerous hurdles. She testified that the previous prosecutors had apparently "neglect[ed]" the case before Rodriquez-Coss was assigned. [Dkt. 46-2 at 83:13-17]. Moreover, the local AUSA assisting Rodriquez-Coss was inexperienced and completely unfamiliar with the case. Id. at 93:20-94:1. The federal judge in Stone was also considered to have negative feelings about the death penalty. Id. at 169:12-17. The record is devoid of any evidence of tardy filings in the Stone case before it was assigned to Rodriquez-Coss. Nor is there any evidence on the record of judicial bias on the part of the presiding judge(s) or that Rodriquez-Coss filed a motion to recuse or to disqualify the judge.

On February 5, 2013, Judge John C. Coughenour noted that Rodriquez-Coss filed a tardy response to a discovery motion in Stone. [Dkt. 35-5, Ex. G (Stone Tr. 2/5/13) at 13]. In the months that followed, Rodriquez-Coss missed numerous other deadlines. See [Dkt. 35-5, Ex. K (Stone Order 10/21/13) (noting six untimely filings on January 7, January 9, August 22, September 30, October 4, and October 10)].

On October 9, 2013, Rodriquez, Carwile, and Kinsey discussed Rodriquez-Coss's litigation assignments over a conference call. [Dkt. 46-4, Ex. D (Kinsey Dep.) at 48:4-9]. During this call, Rodriquez-Coss informed Carwile and Kinsey that she could...